Ghost Solution Suite

 View Only

  • 1.  GSS2 and Vista

    Posted Jun 25, 2007 12:10 PM
    Ok, so here's the deal. We have Ghost Solutions Suite 2.0 on our imaging server. We've been using GSS for years and none of the hardware on the imaging server has changed. (Windows Server 2003 O/S)
     
    In the previous years, we have ghosted XP machines and blown the image out across upwards of 200 machines at the same time. The ghosting and imaging has generally taken between 40 minutes to 1 hour.
     
    This year, we're using Windows Vista Business (on all the machines). The ghosted machines ha the same configuration as the other 12 (testing on 12 before we hit the rest) that need to be imaged. Creating the image takes 40 minutes (normal time for us). Blowing our created image over the 12 machines takes up to 5 hours. We've tried changing out the switches (all Gigabit) and cables (also Gigabit) to no avail. We have already tried using only 1 PC to image out to and it still takes 4 hours.
     
    The only change throughout the past few years has been Vista Business.


  • 2.  RE: GSS2 and Vista

    Posted Jun 26, 2007 01:05 AM
    Hi,

    As far as cloning process is concern, there is no difference between Vista and XP images. Both of them use similar file systems (NTFS/FAT).

    Vista images are much larger than XP (typical XP OS only image is around 700 MB while Vista is around 3GB) so it will take a longer time, if nothing is changed. However, you seem to be experiencing a out of proportion slow down.

    How big is the image file for Vista and XP? When you use it with a single machine, what was the throughput shown in Ghost?

    Do you image the same machines or different machines now?

    Krish


  • 3.  RE: GSS2 and Vista

    Posted Jun 26, 2007 09:23 AM
    The image size for XP is 80GB and for Vista, it is  40GB.
     
    Note: The Vista image is still incomplete as far as what we want on there.
     
    The throughput starts at 480MBps (normal for us) and then it rapidly (over the course of 3 minutes or less) descends to about 80MBps which then creates the 4+ hours of imaging time. This stays the same regardless of if we're imaging to only 1 machine or all 12.
     
    We are imaging the same configuration of the previous machines (with Vista installed instead of XP) so they are new machines, same configuration.
     
    Both images were done using PXE boot. We have also tried the Universal Packet Driver 2.0 and the PXE driver.


  • 4.  RE: GSS2 and Vista

    Posted Jun 26, 2007 10:23 AM
    If it makes a difference, it's Vista Business 32-bit. The model on the computers is HP dc5750 SFF. SATA hard drives, 80GB.


  • 5.  RE: GSS2 and Vista

    Posted Jun 27, 2007 05:09 AM
    Hi,

    OK - that's a large image :-)

    Still it is difficult to think that it is due to the OS. There could be marginal differences due to file compressions (positive or negative) but not anywhere around this.

    Most probably it is related to network. If you send the old XP image to one of these machines, would it still go at that speed?

    What network template do you use for these clients?

    Krish


  • 6.  RE: GSS2 and Vista

    Posted Jun 27, 2007 09:27 AM
    We resolved the issue on our side, though I'm not sure why our resolution worked.
     
    When we set our Ghost images, we limited the bandwidth to 1GB and set GSS2 to use directed broadcast instead of multicast. This took our imaging speed from 150MBps to our normal 800-860MBps.
     
    This leaves me with 2 questions...does the multicast broadcast the image using both directed broadcast and unicast or is it a different animal all by itself?
     
    Also if you've any ideas, why would limiting the bandwidth (if it's not from changing the broadcast type) unplug the bottleneck in the bandwidth speed for the imaging?
     
    By network template, may I assume you mean the network topology? If not, can you clarify that?
     
    The network top that we use (as far as I can tell) is linear bus.


  • 7.  RE: GSS2 and Vista

    Posted Jun 28, 2007 05:04 AM
    Hi,

    Good to hear that you found a solution.

    I am not sure if the change of bandwidth to 1GB had much impact, since your throughput seems to be below that anyway. If it is not the case, I would have thought that some device in your network was getting overloaded and not performing well till you reduce the bandwidth.

    Yes, directed broadcast is 'a different animal'. In Unicast, server send the data individually to all the clients, while in Multicasting it is sent to the multicast address and routers do the rest. In Directed BroadCast, it is sent to each subnet as unicast and the router broadcasts it to it's own subnets (basically packet is sent to xxx.xxx.xxx.255 where xxx.xxx.xxx.0 is your subnet). If you do not use multiple subnets, it is actually a broadcast.


    Krish